researchers libraries services report 2

8/13/2019 Researchers Libraries Services Report 2

1/74

Researchers Use of AcademicLibraries and their ServicesA report commissioned by the ResearchInformation Network and the Consortium ofResearch Libraries

April 2007

www.rin.ac.uk www.curl.ac.uk

1
http://www.rin.ac.uk/http://www.curl.ac.uk/http://www.curl.ac.uk/http://www.rin.ac.uk/http://www.curl.ac.uk/http://www.rin.ac.uk/


2/74

Researchers Use of Academic Libraries and their Services

1 Foreword 1

2 Executive Summary 2

3

Overview and Introduction 5

3.1 Overview 5

3.2 Introduction to the Study 8

4 Pressure Points 10

4.1 Introduction 10

4.2 Drivers for new developments in library services 10

4.3 Support for teaching and research 11

4.4 Factors influencing libraries acquisition of new resources 14 4.5 Managing expectations: library funding 15

4.6 Winning Top-Level Support 16

4.7 Improving levels of access to research literature 16

5 A Sense of Place 19

5.1 Introduction 19

5.2 Frequency of researchers personal visits to the library 19

5.3 The library as a laboratory 21 5.4 The physical resources offered by institutional libraries 22

5.5 The location of researchers 23

5.6 Libraries at other institutions 24

6 What are they doing? What will they do next? Researcher behaviour 28

6.1 Introduction 28

6.2 Researchers use of print information resources 28

6.3 How researchers find information 29 6.4 How researchers work using their library holdings 32

6.5 How researchers obtain items not available in their local library 32

6.6 The rise and fall of inter-library lending 34

7 New Ways of Working 38

7.1 Introduction 38

7.2 The use of digital resources 38

7.3 Large-Scale Collaborative Research and its Impact 40 7.4 The rise of interdisciplinary research 40


3/74


7.5 e-Research and libraries 41

8 New Ways of Providing 43

8.1 Introduction 43

8.2 Researchers views on the roles of librarians in the future 43 8.3 Librarians views of their future roles 46

8.4 Researchers and librarians perceptions of different resources 48

8.5 Librarians perceptions of their provision of electronic information resources 50

8.6 Library-based provision of advice or formal training to researchers 51

8.7 Library-based provision of skills development for researchers 52

8.8 Virtual Research Environments (VREs) and Virtual Research Communities (VRCs) 54

8.9

Issues around collections development 55

9 Visibility, sharing, openness 57

9.1 Introduction 57

9.2 Digitising archives and special collections 57

9.3 The print reserve collection 58

9.4 Open Access 58

9.5 Knowledge transfer 66

10 Getting along, getting on: library-research community relations and thefuture promotion of library services 68

10.1 Introduction 68

10.2 Channels of communication 68

10.3 New ways of communicating by researchers 69

10.4 Branding the library 70


4/74


5/74


1 Foreword

Academic libraries have for centuries played critically-important roles in supporting research in all

subjects and disciplines within their host universities and colleges. But the last decade has brought asea-change in relationships between researchers and libraries. Technological developments and theavailability of information resources online have changed how research is done, and also the servicesthat academic libraries provide to their research communities. Both researchers and librarians have welcomed the benefits these changes have brought, adapting rapidly to them and seeking to exploittheir potential to the full. And they both look forward to further change in the coming years.

With new technological developments and innovations come new challenges and new expectations. Incommissioning this study, the RIN and CURL have sought to establish a solid base of evidence on howlibraries have been developing their services and strategies, and how researchers have been making useof those services. But we have also sought to look forward, to gain a perspective from both researchers

and librarians as to how they envisage library services developing in the future. We commissioned Key Perspectives Ltd to undertake the study, and we are most grateful to them for what they have done. It has involved major surveys of researchers and of librarians, and an intensiveseries of focus group discussions and interviews. We are grateful also to all those who have advised usabout the study, and to those who responded to the surveys and participated in the discussions.

The result is an authoritative account of the current state of relationships between researchers,academic libraries, and the services those libraries provide; and of perspectives on how they mightdevelop for the future. The evidence base is now in place.

The key task now is to consider all the lessons and implications that can be drawn from it. The report

provides important hints, in highlighting, for instance, the importance of better communications anddialogue between libraries and researchers. But there is much more to be done. We shall be working with our key stakeholders to build on this study to develop policy and strategic advice to libraries andinformation services, their host universities and colleges, and funding bodies on how best to supportand develop library services in the coming years. Researchers rely on effective information services,more than they often realise. Ensuring that libraries provide the services that researchers need, and thatresearchers can make the most effective use of those services, are critically-important priorities.

Michael Jubb Director, RIN

Robin Green Executive Director, CURL

During the course of this study we surveyed or spoke to thousands of researchers and hundreds oflibrarians, library school educators and information specialists. We promised anonymity but they know who they are and we thank them most sincerely for their time and input. We hope we have accuratelyreflected the opinions and advice given to us but any conclusions that have been drawn are ours aloneand we take responsibility for them.

Sheridan Brown and Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd


6/74


2 Executive Summary

This study was designed to provide an up-to-date and forward-looking view of how researchers interact

with academic libraries in the UK. Harnessing empirical data and qualitative insights from over 2250researchers and 300 librarians, the sponsors of the survey hope that the results will be useful ininforming the debate about the future development of academic libraries and the services they provideto researchers.

This is an important moment in the relationship between researchers and research libraries in the UK.The foundations of the relationship are beginning to be tested by shifts in the way that researchers work. The rise of e-research, interdisciplinary work, cross-institution collaborations, and theexpectation of massive increases in the quantity of research output in digital form all pose newchallenges. These challenges are about how libraries should serve the needs of researchers as users ofinformation sources of many different kinds, but also about how to deal with the information outputs

that researchers are creating.Currently, the majority of researchers think that their institutions libraries are doing an effective job inproviding the information they need to do their work, but it is time to consider the future roles andresponsibilities of all those involved in the research cycle researchers, research institutions andnational bodies, as well as libraries in meeting the challenges that are coming.

Pressure points

The majority of researchers in all disciplines have adapted readily to the widespread availability ofdigital content, accessible directly from their desktops. Researchers are eager for more digital contentand libraries are eager to provide it. But while nearly all researchers think funding the library should be

a high or top priority for their institution, librarians indicate that it is not always easy to secure top-levelsupport. Hence academic libraries receive a relatively modest proportion of their institutions budgetsand cannot deliver all they would wish to. Limited funding emphasises the tension between competingdemands for library resources: many researchers perceive that libraries give greater priority to supportfor teaching and learning rather than to research, something that many librarians acknowledge.

A sense of place

There has been a sharp fall over the past five years in the number of researchers who visit theirinstitutions library regularly. This is most pronounced in the sciences, but in all disciplines there isclear evidence of declining attendance. Researchers are choosing to access digital information fromtheir desktops, primarily from their office but also from their homes. Only in the arts and humanitiesdo a significant majority of researchers put a high value on the services provided in library buildings. And while just over a third of arts and humanities researchers visit libraries other than their own on aregular basis, a much smaller number of social science and science researchers do so. More must bedone to facilitate the use of other libraries offerings and to promote the use of reciprocal accessschemes for both printed and digital content.

Researcher behaviour

Most researchers use digital finding aids to locate both digital and print-based resources. Print findingaids are used by very few researchers, and these are mainly in the arts and humanities. This highlightsthe need for libraries to ensure that they provide online high-quality metadata for their holdings, and

that they address cataloguing backlogs. Information resources that cannot be found electronically may well be overlooked, since few researchers will invest the time required to track down items that cannotquickly be identified using digital finding aids. Once they have identified the information they require,


7/74


most researchers, particularly in the sciences, will not spend long trying to obtain it. For items notavailable digitally and immediately, many researchers use inter-library loan, though its use is decliningas researchers adopt a variety of pragmatic and informal approaches by-passing the library - toovercome barriers to access.

New ways of working As users of digital information, researchers place a very high value on electronic journals, but a muchlower value as yet on libraries provision of other kinds of digital resources. Increases in the scale ofresearch, and the growth of collaborative and inter-disciplinary research teams, present challenges tolibraries in seeking to provide effective services and equitable access to the members of such teams. Andgrowth in the volume and scale of research, along with the development of e-research and virtualresearch communities, is also leading to rapid growth in the volume of digital research outputs in manydifferent forms; these are likely to create new challenges for librarians in data management, storage andpreservation. There is an urgent need for librarians and the research community to work together toclarify the roles and responsibilities of key players at national as well as institutional level - in

managing these outputs.New ways of providing

A significant part of the study focuses on the roles librarians play in support of the research process, andthe related expectations of researchers. Both groups expect that libraries will have a key role ascustodians and managers of digital resources. Librarians believe their current role of providing expertadvice and teaching on information literacy will continue to be important in the future. But while manyresearchers agree with this, libraries will need to ensure that effort is put into securing significant take-up of their expertise and advice by the research community. There are some significant differences between researchers and librarians views as to the future role of libraries in supporting research, andthere is a need for dialogue between them to ensure that library services and expertise are developedand deployed in the most effective way.

Multi-institutional developments such as Virtual Research Environments will continue to grow:libraries could win important roles here, but these new developments will generate new demands interms of resourcing, equipping people with appropriate skill sets and managing the process of inter-institutional cooperation.

Visibility, sharing, openness

Libraries have made significant efforts to optimise the visibility and usage of their archival or specialcollection material through digitisation programmes. Feedback from researchers is very positive, butmany information resources that could be useful to researchers remain under-used currently, mainly because they exist only in hardcopy or are inadequately catalogued. Researchers awareness of newdevelopments in scholarly communications, particularly issues to do with open access to researchoutputs, is low. Further progress in realising the potential of open access to optimise access to researchoutputs will require effective interaction between researchers, libraries and senior management atinstitutional and national level.

Library-research community relations and the future promotion of library services

For librarians, liaison with the research community presents a number of problems, arising from thetransience of many of the individual relationships that can be formed, the increasing tendency forresearchers to use library services remotely, and researcher independence. There are significant

differences between researchers and librarians in attitudes, perceptions and awareness of key issues.Many believe that communication channels need to be improved but achieving this is not easy. There isa danger that the role of libraries may be diluted as researchers, particularly younger ones, turn to the


8/74


social networking space to share research-based information. This potential divergence of paths is notinevitable; but libraries need to proclaim their value so that researchers properly understand andacknowledge what the library is bringing to their working lives, and most particularly to their desktops. At present, many do not, perceiving only that these resources are delivered by the institution in somegeneral guise. The successful research library of the future needs to forge a stronger brand identity within the institution.


9/74

Researchers Use of Academic Libraries and their Services3. Overview and Introduction

3 Overview and Introduction

3.1 Overview

This study of researchers use of library services to support their research is far-reaching, and presents aquantitative as well as qualitative account of the current position and of likely trends for the future. Itneeds to be set in the context of existing knowledge about what libraries do and about researcher behaviour with respect to libraries, the topics of many studies over the last two decades. Researcher behaviour and library developments exert reciprocal influences and pressures on each other. Librariesand the research community follow a leap-frog path of mutually-supportive advancement, sometimes with changes in researcher needs outpacing the librarys ability to provide, sometimes with the librarysproactive embracing of change (in technology, say) waiting for researchers to catch up.

A number of major themes arise in this study, amongst them the availability of digital information,collection building and usage, collaboration, discovery and the discovery-access gap, metadata andcatalogues, and the growth of informal scholarly communications. In this scene-setting section of thereport we introduce these, since they represent clear foci of attention for both researchers andlibrarians.

3.1.1 Digital Information We start with technology and the increasing availability of digital information. Numerous studies (see,for example, 1,2) have reported that the electronic availability of journals and other periodic literature,and to a growing extent books, has been a prime factor in the decreasing number of personal visits to

research libraries, and the increasing amount of information-seeking and retrieval carried out atresearchers desks, either at work or at home. Indeed, such is the convenience of remote access at anytime of the day or night that the notion has spilled over into areas outside the direct accessing of journals and books.

Online journal usage began in the sciences and whilst in the early 1990s technical problems in accessingand retrieving information were quite common 3 such problems are now rare. Now, almost allresearchers report that they use online journals, though in the arts and humanities the level of provisionof online journals still lags behind the sciences. Nonetheless, the number of e-journals in the arts andhumanities increases year on year and is welcomed by the community. This trend will continue and thefuture is assuredly digital. This goes for monographs, too, though the market for e-books has been slowto develop in the UK. That said, librarians told us that they are increasingly looking to spend money inthis area and recent figures show that spending on e-books has now reached 11% of the print book budget and is predicted to rise to 20% by 2011 4.

3.1.2 Digital Collections Building electronic collections is thus a major issue for libraries and with this comes the question ofhow best to do it. Obviously, utility to the research community is one major factor guiding the choice of

1 Friedlander, A (2002) Dimensions and use of the scholarly information environment: a data set assembled by the Digital library Federation andOutsell, Inc. Council on Library and Information Resources. www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf098/2 Research Support Libraries Group (2003): Final Report (survey of researchers). www.rslg.ac.uk/final/final.pdf 3 Hallmark, J (1994) Scientists access and retrieval of references cited in their recent journal articles. College and Research libraries 55 (3) , 199-201.4 Primary Research Group Inc (2006) The Survey of Academic Libraries. ISBN 157440-080-0 www.primaryresearch.com . Use of e-books in theHE sector is likely to be stimulated further by an e-book observatory project being funded over the next two years by JISC. Seehttp://www.jiscebooksproject.org/ .

[5]
http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf098/http://www.rslg.ac.uk/final/final.pdfhttp://www.primaryresearch.com/http://www.jiscebooksproject.org/http://www.jiscebooksproject.org/http://www.primaryresearch.com/http://www.rslg.ac.uk/final/final.pdfhttp://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf098/


10/74


journals or journal packages to purchase, but it is not easy to measure this satisfactorily. Usage loganalysis can tell part of the story of how particular journals or systems are used, but not about howusers actually utilise the information. Do they read what they download? Do they cite it? Whicharticles provide the critical insights or pointers for their work, and which are filed away on theircomputer (or, printed out, in their filing cabinet) never to be looked at again? Surveys and observationsmay tell a fuller story, but still not the whole. So librarians must try to put together data from multiplesources 5 to make judgments on how useful electronic objects are and what place they have within theiroverall collections. The view has been clouded, too, by the move to big deals in recent years. Conceivedas a win-win-win solution to the serials crisis (a positive outcome for publishers, libraries and users),the big deal model found great favour in many quarters but not in others. More recently, some librariesor consortia have sought to cancel their deals or negotiate new terms. Nevertheless, the libraryconsortia which negotiated big deals have better purchasing power and have developed a betterunderstanding of their users needs as result of working collaboratively and rigorously in a quest toimprove collections development.

3.1.3 Collaboration Such collaborative work will continue: it has proved to be effective. Local collaborative acquisition, andreciprocal document delivery or borrowing schemes can be an answer to some of the problemsassociated with collections development. The CORSALL project in the East Midlands provides aninformative example of what can be done, as well as where the hitches may be found 6 and a broader-ranging report on resource sharing was produced by CHEMS in 2002 7. It is not all plain-sailing, andcommitment to collaborative ventures can have detrimental repercussions; for example, when researchin a particular area ceases in one institution, the library must continue to pay for its share of the deal,despite the local need no longer existing.

3.1.4 Discovery and Access The digital environment has radically changed the way researchers find articles, as well as how theyaccess and retrieve them. To do this, researchers must master an array of finding tools that themselvesform part of the complexity of materials and services incorporated in modern digital libraries that have been described as a cascade of interactions at the interface 8 . Librarians and users must make sense ofthis cascade, and librarians must be the guides of users in this respect. Skills training is a big issue, and we report on how UK librarians and researchers view this matter: in general it is clear that librariesoffer such training as a matter of course and that many researchers avail themselves of it. Our findingscan be compared with those reported in the study published by the Research Information Network inNovember 2006 on researchers use of resource discovery services 9. This found a lack of formal trainingin using discovery services; and while this was not seen as a problem by the research community,librarians viewed researchers as highly conservative in the range of tools they use.

Our discussions with both parties librarians and researchers tended to confirm this: researchers do use a limited range of discovery tools, partly because they become familiar with their scope and thustrust the outcome, and partly because they are unadventurous when they think the tools they habituallyuse produce an acceptable result. And researchers seem to be becoming more limited in the range of

5 Tenopir, C (2003) Use and users of electronic library resources: an overview and analysis of recent research studies. Council on Library andInformation Resources. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/contents.html 6 Bloor, I (2006). CORSALL: Collaboration in Research Support by academic libraries in Leicestershire: final report.https://test2.blue.dmu.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2086/52 7 http://www.rslp.ac.uk/circs/ 8 Bates, M J (2002) The cascade of interactions in the digital library interface. Information Processing and Management 38 , 381-4009 Researchers and discovery services: behaviour, perceptions and needs. Research Information Network, November 2006http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdf .

[6]
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/contents.htmlhttp://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/contents.htmlhttps://test2.blue.dmu.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2086/52http://www.rslp.ac.uk/circs/http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdfhttp://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdfhttp://www.rslp.ac.uk/circs/https://test2.blue.dmu.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2086/52http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/contents.html


11/74


tools they use as Google becomes better at delivering a result they see as satisfactory. Van Orsdel andBorn 10 report that Google has relentlessly strengthened its claim as the ubiquitous front door to the web and all of its content, including scholarly content. They found that Google is responsible forreferring 56% of the users of HighWire journals, and our own study shows that over 70% of researchers

use it routinely to find scholarly content11

. Moreover, web search engine referrals also appear toaccount for the vast majority of accesses to institutional repositories 12.

Does this matter, and if so what are the implications for the future? One of them is that researchers are becoming more displaced from the library with respect to information finding, access and retrieval.Mostafa paints a tantalising picture of a future where web search engines will be able to locate allmanner of content via personalised services delivered to mobile devices of users on the move 13. Thisdoes not seem fanciful, but it does pose some questions as to how libraries will be able to weave suchdevelopments into their own services and modus operandi in the future.

As researchers make more use of online discovery tools, they also increasingly encounter the gap between finding and gaining access to the resources relevant to their work. One of the implications ofGoogle (and web search engines in general, though in practice Google is the one most commonly used)already being experienced by libraries is that Google uncovers things that users cannot easily access,and librarians are increasingly asked to help in retrieving the object from webspace. This is not usuallyeasy, takes time and is resource-intensive. It may be an interesting challenge for librarians, andperhaps even welcome so long as the volume of requests is manageable; but the future will bring moreand more of this. The last decade has brought plenty enough frustration to both librarians andresearchers when journal articles that are located are found to sit behind a subscription barrier. This was highlighted in the RIN study on discovery services 14: The main frustration is not with researchdiscovery services themselves but with the problem of subsequently accessing identified sources and

materials. The last mile of the process which actually delivers the document or other source that hasbeen searched for is the focus of concern, with lack of access to journal articles because of asubscription barrier being the most frequently-expressed difficulty experienced .

3.1.5 Metadata and Catalogues Notwithstanding their frustrations, journal articles are relatively simple to find even if not always toaccess. Other items may not be so easily located because their metadata is poor in quality, or non-existent in digital form. Without good, fully-descriptive metadata online, an item will be unnoticed byall but the most persistent and curious. Librarians acknowledge the importance of assigning adequatemetadata to all the items in their holdings, and the scale of the task they face. It is resource-intensive

and requires highly-trained and experienced cataloguers. Libraries are doing what they can but theircurrent resources often do not go far enough to do more than nibble away at the edges. There are anumber of project-level initiatives in this area and they are producing, and will no doubt produce more,outstanding recommendations and protocols; but many libraries need further practical help in dealing with cataloguing backlogs and struggle with the demands and the opportunities of ensuring that alltheir digital and print holdings are adequately catalogued.

10 Van Orsdel L C and Born K (2006) Journals in the time of Google. LibraryJournal .com , April 15, 2006.http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6321722.html 11 Swan, A and Brown S (2005) Open Access self-archiving: an author study. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/ 12 Carr, L (2006) Use of navigational tools in a repository. Posting to American Scientist Open Access Forum, March 9, 2006http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5170.html 13 Mostafa, J (2005) Seeking better web searches. Scientific American 292 (2) , February 2005, 66-7314 Researchers and discovery services: behaviour, perceptions and needs. Research Information Network, November 2006http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdf .

[7]
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6321722.htmlhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5170.htmlhttp://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdfhttp://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Report%20-%20final.pdfhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5170.htmlhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6321722.html


12/74


The role of library catalogues is being discussed energetically in some library circles. In this report wepresent findings on how useful researchers find their library catalogue and on its place in their currentarmoury. But the current distinctive role of the catalogue may not last. Dempsey urges us to considerthe catalogue in the wider context of the whole gamut of discovery systems: alongside the catalogue heforesees discovery systems for other collection types (the institutional repository, the digital assetrepository, etc); the emergence of a general search/resolution layer within the library; externalenvironments such as Google and Amazon, the RSS aggregator, or the course management system 15 .

3.1.6 Informal Scholarly Communications Libraries face new challenges as researchers behaviour changes in response to new technologicaldevelopments. This is especially pronounced in the new ways of communicating that have beendescribed as the democratisation of informal scholarly communication 16. Libraries will need to planfor and build services that fit new researcher work habits, with an emphasis on the flexibility andremixing of their content and services. The library offering will be through a network environment which is already bringing change in user behaviour. Indeed, this is one area where researchers are

moving a little faster than the library at present. In this study we paid some attention to the new worldof informal peer-to-peer communication within the research community. The findings are thatresearchers are adopting social networking technologies very fast and that so far they have done so ontheir own: the library has effectively been bypassed.

It is possible that this is how things will continue, though it seems more likely that concerns over the vulnerability of socially-created, valuable information will send researchers into the arms of those theytrust on curation and preservation issues, at the very least. Not all wikis and blogs are thought of asephemeral, after all. Moreover, departmental server provision, enough to keep up so far with theamount of information deemed desirable to hold onto, may also be swiftly outgrown by the inexorable

rise in the volumes of data generated and accumulated by researchers. In the networked environmentthe needs of the research community may thus bring about a new coalescence with the wired library.Dempsey 17 argues that a fundamental of the new library world is attention : .some things you justhad to go to the library for. In the current Web environment this is no longer the case. There aremany demands on attention and many resources are available . we see a growing discussion of howto engage with user environments and workflows . Nothing ever stands still, but the pace of changeof user behaviour in the networked world is fast and getting faster. Planning for the provision ofservices that match researcher requirements will get tougher, but the key would appear to be to buildsystems that can synthesise, that are flexible and that are adaptable. Murray put this succinctly: thebusiness and service model [of libraries] is evolving from acquiring, cataloguing and circulating physical collections to synthesising, specialising and mobilising Web-based services 18. And inter-library collaborative ventures may become appropriate here, too, to remove redundancies, buildcapacities and iron out inefficiencies.

3.2 Introduction to the Study

In commissioning this study the RIN and CURL, with input from SCONUL, aimed to capture an up-to-the-minute perspective on how researchers are using academic libraries in the UK, and will use them inthe future. At the same time, we asked librarians to comment on the services they offer researchers at

15 Dempsey, L (2006) The library catalogue in the new discovery environment: some thoughts. Ariadne , Issue 48 , July 200616 Davies, J E and Greenwood, H (2004) Scholarly communication trends voices from the vortex: a summary of specialist opinion. Learned

Publishing 17 (2) , 157-167. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2004/00000017/00000002/art00011 17 Dempsey, L (2006) The (digital) library environment: ten years after. Ariadne 46 , February 200618 Murray, R (2006) Library systems: synthesise, specialize, mobilize. Ariadne 48 , July 2006

[8]
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2004/00000017/00000002/art00011http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2004/00000017/00000002/art00011http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2004/00000017/00000002/art00011


13/74


[9]

present, and on the forces precipitating change in those services. The study has been far-reaching,involving not only quantitative surveys of researchers and librarians, but also a significant qualitativeconsultation process which included the input of an expert panel, focus group discussions andtelephone interviews. In total more than 2250 researchers and 300 librarians volunteered their views

in detail.

The results provide a snapshot of researchers and librarians attitudes and perceptions in relation tothe UKs academic libraries. It is a timely snapshot since there are forces which appear set to acceleratethe pace of change, both in researchers expectations and in libraries ability to meet those expectations.Researchers like access to digital content, and through the use of new tools and new ways of workingthey are themselves producing new digital content. The rapid rise of e-science, interdisciplinaryresearch and large scale international collaborations are set to increase the quantity and change thenature of research output dramatically, but it is not yet clear what role libraries will play in this bravenew world. There are challenges ahead for libraries but also opportunities: at this point there is muchto play for.

The body of the report presents a synthesis of the results from the quantitative and qualitative aspectsof the study, structured in a way that makes the outcomes easily accessible to readers. The quantitativedata from the survey of researchers is disaggregated in the main across four broad disciplinary groupsof researchers: in the arts and humanities; the social sciences; the physical sciences; and the lifesciences. This seems to be the most practical approach, and it reflects the findings of recent studies such as the JISC report on disciplinary differences 19 - which highlight important differences betweendisciplinary groups in their information-related behaviour.

Section 4 explores the role of digital information in increasing access to content but also driving

libraries policies; and the perception of the role of the library in the institution as a whole.

Section 5 explores the role of the library as place, and the physical services it provides, as the numberof researchers visiting the library building falls sharply.

Section 6 explores researchers use of print and digital finding aids and content as well as examiningthe pragmatic approaches they adopt to overcome barriers to accessing the information they seek.

Section 7 looks at how researchers are beginning to work in new ways, and the implications forlibraries as they seek to develop new roles in supporting research

Section 8 builds on these themes and provides insights into the ways in which libraries might bestprovide for the future needs of researchers.

Section 9 looks at scholarly communications, and libraries roles in supporting new developmentssuch as open access.

Section 10 explores issues of communication both between researchers themselves and betweenresearchers and librarians.

An outline of the methodology employed may be found at Appendix 1 together with a full set ofstatistical data summaries.

19 Rightscom Ltd (2005) JISC disciplinary differences report. JISC. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2005/09/schol_comms_reports.aspx
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2005/09/schol_comms_reports.aspxhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2005/09/schol_comms_reports.aspx


14/74


15/74

Researchers Use of Academic Libraries and their Services4. Pressure Points

F i g u r e 1: R esea r c h er s' a n d l i b r a r i a n s ' v i e w s o n w h i c h f a ct o r s a r e i m p o r t a n t i nr eq u i r i n g l i b r a r i es t o ch a n g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Research funders moving towards fewer, larger

multidisciplinary projects

Development of Virtual Research Communities

Next generation of researchers will have a different approachto research practices and information management

Increasing availability of scholarly information in digitalform

Per cent

Researchers Librarians

4.3 Support for teaching and research

Librarians need to balance their investments in information resources and services in a manner thatreflects the sometimes competing needs of teaching and research. Our survey indicates that around halfof the UKs researchers think librarians have got the balance about right. But as Figure 2 indicates,there is a clear sense that the needs of researchers are not sufficiently recognised in the configuration ofinformation resources and services provided to them. Only small proportions of researchers think theirlibrary is too focused on providing resources and services for researchers. At the same time, 61% ofresearchers either disagree or strongly disagree that their library is too focused on providing for theneeds of researchers. Taken together, these responses suggest significant levels of dissatisfaction and aperceived imbalance between serving the needs of teaching and research.

In our focus groups, researchers told us that the effects of a librarys requirement to service teachingand learning needs can be detrimental to the provision of services underpinning research. In somecases, researchers have to purchase themselves books they need for research because their librarycannot justify purchase through the library budget 20 . Sometimes, researchers make the case for thepurchase of a research text with a disingenuous claim that it is for teaching purposes. Indeed, teachingitself may suffer from some libraries relatively tight rules on purchasing research texts: it was pointedout that teaching degree-level courses is impossible without buying decent research texts, yet this aimis often difficult to achieve. This spills over into the use of inter-library loan, which is in some casesdiscouraged for research-based materials, with priority given to obtaining teaching-related articles.

20 We distinguish here between this imperative and the longstanding culture in the arts and humanities of scholars developing their own privatelibrary

[11]


16/74


F i g u r e 2 : Per cen t a g e s o f r e sea r ch er s w h o " st r o n g l y a g r ee" o r " a g r ee" t h a t t h ei r l i b r a r yi s t o o f o cu s ed o n t e a ch i n g , t o o f o c u sed o n r esea r c h , o r i n b a l a n c e

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Percent

Arts & Humanities 30.9 2.5 43.7

Social Sciences 26.1 3.0 51.9

Physical Sciences 19.0 3.9 54.3

Life Sciences 20.2 3.3 56.4

Library too focused onteaching

Library too focused onresearch

The balance is about right

It is instructive to compare these findings with the views of librarians. They were asked to indicate therelative importance of teaching and research needs in relation to driving their librarys policy. Figure 3shows that although librarians are concerned to provide resources and services for both teaching andresearch, it is the needs of teaching that tend to take priority: 81% of librarians think that the teachingand learning needs of people in their own institution are very important in driving library policy,compared with 68% who give the same rating to the information needs of their institutions researchers.This provides some support for those researchers who perceive that their library is too focused onteaching.

The emphasis on teaching and learning is most pronounced in the post-1992 universities, where bothresearchers and librarians say that research needs are often treated as secondary to teaching needs. In

some institutions, certain departments, intended to focus almost exclusively upon teaching, areeffectively disqualified from any research support from the library. In other teaching-focusedinstitutions research-oriented services are provided by the library on demand but not proactively, sothat support for research is not as effective as it might be. And even in the most research-intensiveinstitutions, librarians reported that priority is still given to resourcing teaching needs. In one case, theresourcing of teaching and learning with respect to the library was described as draining.

[12]


17/74


F i g u r e 3 : R el a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e o f t ea c h i n g a n d r esea r ch n e ed s i n d r i v i n g l i b r a r y p o l i c y

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Info needs of yourresearchers

Info needs of researchersat other institutions

Teaching/learning needsof your own community

Teaching/learning needsof people at other

institutions

National strategies onresearch

National strategies onteaching and learning

Don't know 0.3 1.6 0.0 1.6 5.2 4.9

Not at all important 0.3 9.5 0.7 11.4 2.9 1.6

Not very important 1.6 22.2 1.3 24.2 5.9 3.3

Neutral 2.6 31.4 2.0 35.6 16.7 16.3

Important 26.1 29.7 13.7 23.9 46.1 48.7

Very important 67.6 4.2 80.7 1.3 20.6 23.2

Info needs of yourresearchers

Info needs ofresearchers at other

institutions

Teaching/learningneeds of your own

community

Teaching/learningneeds of people atother institutions

National strategieson research

National strategieson teaching and

learning

Although national strategies on research and on teaching and learning are clearly influential in shapinglibrary policy in some institutions, the results show that the teaching and learning needs of librariansown institutions are paramount in terms of driving library policy. Serving the teaching and research

needs of people from institutions other than their own has a relatively minor influence on library policy.It is notable, however, that nearly a third of librarians do take account of teaching and learning needs ofresearchers from other institutions.

[13]


18/74


On a different tack, it is worth noting that 16% of librarians believe that international developments inresearch are very important in influencing library policy and an additional 41% think they areimportant.

4.4 Factors influencing libraries acquisition of new resourcesTo provide a slightly different perspective on library priorities, librarians were asked to rate threefactors identified by the projects expert panel as being key to driving the acquisition of new resources.Figure 4 shows that the most important influence is the desire to provide resources for teaching andlearning: 82% of librarians believe this is a strong driver. This provides further support forthe conclusion that libraries have a particular focus on providing resources for teaching and learning.

F i g u r e 4 : L i b r a r i a n s v i ew s o n t h e k e y f a ct o r s d r i v i n g d em a n d f o r t h e a cq u i s i t i o n o fn e w r eso u r c es

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Availability of digital versions of print

resources

New interdisciplinary work being started by

your researchers

Teaching/ learningresource provision

Has no effect 2.6 1.6 0.3

Weak driver 6.9 15.4 3.3

Moderate driver 40.2 43.5 12.4

Strong driver 48.0 36.6 82.0

Availability of digital versions of printresources

New interdisciplinary work being started by your researchers

Teaching/ learning resource provision

The availability of digital versions of print resources is the second most important driver of acquisitionstrategies: 48% of librarians report this to be a strong driver with an additional 40% reporting it to bea moderate one. This reflects researchers preference for electronic information resources over print,and libraries shortage of space to store print resources.

Finally, it is worth noting librarians views as to the implications of an institutions research communitystarting new interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary work. For 37% of librarians this would be a strong

driver for acquiring appropriate information resources specifically to serve this new need, for 43.5% it would be a moderate driver. But for 15% it would be a weak driver. While these figures indicate the

[14]


19/74


majority of librarians would take the new need seriously, it is clear that the imperative to provide forteaching and learning is more important in relative terms.

4.5 Managing expectations: library funding

Librarians have a constant struggle to balance the demands for the support of research and of teaching with tight budgets. Researchers are well aware of this because for many years they have been involvedin the annual round of discussions about journal subscription cancellations, new journal purchase, book budgets, and how to assign priorities for library purchasing. Researchers understand the problemsfaced by their libraries and that the price of current journal literature in particular has risen over thelast decade or so at a rate out of line with library budget increases. Researchers are sympathetic to theplight of librarians on this issue, and concerned in particular about the increasing pressure on theprovision of materials to support their research.

Funding for the library, and the priority given to this within overall institutional budgets, is a matter ofconcern to researchers as well as librarians. The Parry Report in the 1960s recommended that library budgets should be 6% of a universitys total spending (at the time they were around 4-5%); but library budgets have tended to fall since then, and now stand at around 3% of total institutional budgets. Tosome researchers this comes as a surprise; they expected it to be more.

F i g u r e 5 : R esea r c h er s v i ew s t h e p r i o r i t y t o b e g i v en t o f u n d i n g t h e l i b r a r y

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Arts & humanities 51.2 38.8 5.4 0.7 1.2

Social sciences 36.5 53.3 7.4 0.8 0.7

Physical sciences 19.2 61.3 12.4 2.5 0.7

Life sciences 30.7 58.1 8.6 0.6 0.4

Top priority High priority Medium priority Low priority Don't know

Figure 5 shows the responses gave when we asked them what priority they thought should be given tofunding the library, within the context of competing demands from other parts of the institution for afinite pot of money. It shows clearly that most researchers, especially in the arts and humanities,

[15]


20/74


believe that funding the library should be near the top of their institutions priority list. Support fromarts and humanities researchers is perhaps unsurprising, since they make the most use of libraries. It isclear, however, that support comes from right across the research community: the majority think thattheir library services deserve high or top funding priority.

4.6 Winning Top-Level SupportDespite this professed level of support for libraries, it is clear from our discussions with both librariansand researchers that most researchers lack any clear understanding of what the library is doing on their behalf. We discuss the issue of communications between researchers and libraries further in Section 9.But we consider here the implications for libraries success in securing support at high level in theirinstitutions. We asked librarians about how easy it is to secure top-level support, and the results arepresented in Figure 6. It shows that only a fifth of librarians believe that their research community isactive in promoting the library to top management; that just under a third believe that when they seeksupport they can usually count on securing it; but that 42% of librarians believe that the library usually

has to strive to win top-level support on its own. Clearly the task facing librarians varies frominstitution to institution: 22% report that it is relatively easy to secure top-level support at theirinstitution, whereas 26% disagree and presumably face a tougher challenge.

F i g u r e 6 : W i n n i n g t o p l ev el su p p o r t : t h e v i ew s o f l i b r a r i a n s

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

It is relatively easy to secure top-level support at my institution

In striving to win top-level support, the library can usually count on strong support from the institution's research

community

The library usually has to strive to win top-level support onits own

The institution's research community often promotes theinterests of the library to the institution's top management

Agree Neutral Disagree Don't know

4.7 Improving levels of access to research literature

As we have already noted, library budgets have been under pressure in recent years, and many librarieshave experienced real-terms budget cuts and tough purchasing decisions. In this context, we askedresearchers to respond to a range of suggested approaches to improving current levels of access toresearch literature. The results are presented in Figure 7.

Overall about half of researchers think libraries should fight for increased funding to buy moresubscriptions to traditional journals, though arts and humanities researchers are slightly more inclinedto favour this approach than those in other disciplines. There is strong support (67% overall) for the

[16]


21/74


steps that library consortia are taking to achieve purchasing and resource sharing economies. In termsof accessing literature via means other than subscription-based journals, there is a reasonable level ofsupport (41% overall) for prioritising the purchase of journals that offer a mix of subscription-based andOpen Access content, though less support (25% overall) for using library funds to help authors pay

Open Access publication charges. Indeed, 19% explicitly do not favour this option, and librarians likethe idea even less.

In relation to open access, 43.5% of researchers support moves to facilitate the deposit of their researchoutput into their institutions repositories. More social science researchers favour this approach thantheir counterparts in other disciplines, but they are still far behind the wishes of librarians in this regardas shown in Figure 7. A clear majority of all researchers (64%) would favour the provision of clearerpointers to open access content, including in library catalogues. We discuss researchers awareness ofand attitudes towards open access further in Section 9.

F i g u r e 7 : P er c en t a g es o f r e sea r c h er s w h o f a v o u r t h e su g g e st e d w a y s f o r l i b r a r i e s a th i g h er ed u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t e s t o i m p r o v e c u r r en t l ev e l s o f a c cess t o r esea r c h l i t e r a t u r e

0

20

40

60

80

Fight for funds for more journalsubscriptions

Create library buying consortia

Prioritise buying hybrid journals

Clearer pointers to OA content (e.g. includeOA journals in library catalogue)

Facilitate deposition to IRs

Use library funds for OA fees

Arts & Humanities Social Science Physical Science Life Science Librarians

The views of librarians coincide with those of researchers on three points: creating buying and resource-sharing consortia; prioritising the purchase of journals with mixed subscription and Open Accesscontent; and providing clearer pointers to existing Open Access content. On the other three points,however, librarians views clearly diverge from those of researchers. Librarians do not shareresearchers desire to fight for increased funding to buy more subscriptions to traditional journals; and

they are even less favourable than researchers to the use of library funds to help authors pay Open Access publication charges. On the other hand, librarians are keen to focus on facilitating the process whereby their researchers can deposit their research output into their institutional repository.

[17]


22/74


[18]

Key Points

Researchers in all disciplines welcome the delivery through the library and other sources ofdigital content direct to the desktop; they are eager for more to be made available; and bothresearchers and librarians see this as the key driver requiring libraries to change the way theydeliver services

Many researchers perceive that libraries give greater priority to support for teaching andlearning rather than research; and librarians tend to agree.

Libraries constitute only a modest proportion of institutional expenditure; but budgets arestretched and libraries are unable to provide all the services they would wish to.

Researchers in all disciplines indicate that they give high priority to funding the institutionallibrary; but librarians indicate that support from researchers is not always readily provided.


23/74

Researchers Use of Academic Libraries and their Services5. A Sense of Place

[19]

5 A Sense of Place

5.1 Introduction

Traditionally, the library has been seen as the heart of the academic institution, a place of fundamentalimportance to every researcher, teacher and student on campus. Traditionally, too, researchers as wellas students visited the library regularly, consulted the contents of its shelves, talked to library staff,filled in forms to order books or articles from that library or one in another institution, and spent time browsing, reading and working within its walls.

Many researchers still visit their library. They go to find items they know they want and know to bethere; sometimes to browse, especially books, grey literature and new issues of journals; to recommend books for purchase; to obtain journals and books which they take away to photocopy for free in theirown department (commonly, libraries charge for photocopying); and to get away from the telephone

and other distractions of working life. That is not to say that they find university libraries entirely totheir satisfaction as workplaces: many do not visit precisely because they no longer find librariesconducive to quiet work.

There are shifts in the patterns of these activities, however, driven quite strongly though not entirely by the electronic availability of resources. The role of the library as a place in researchers working livesis becoming very different from what it traditionally has been. This section reports on the changes thatare taking place and the reasons for them.

5.2 Frequency of researchers personal visits to the library

Librarians have known for some years that researchers are visiting their main institutional libraries lessand less frequently, and many have a good idea of the scale of the change in their own libraries. This hasimportant implications for library strategy, and in particular on planning for the physical configurationof the library. We sought to measure the change across the sector, and to assess whether the fall in visitsto the library is likely to continue. Researchers were asked to record the frequency with which theypersonally visited their main institutional library in 2001 and 2006, and also to anticipate the likelyfrequency of their visits in 2011. The results, shown in Figure 8, are unequivocal: researchers visits tolibraries have declined markedly since 2001 and the decline is set to continue, albeit at a slower rate.

The graph shows that, overall, whereas 40% of researchers personally visited their main institutionallibrary at least once a week in 2001, by 2006 this proportion had fallen to 22.5%; and researchers ownpredictions indicate that it will continue to decline, to 18.5%, by 2011.

As might be expected, there are significant differences between researchers in different disciplines. Forsome time now it has been recognised that researchers in the arts and humanities are heavier users oflibraries in person than researchers in the sciences, and our findings bear this out. In 2001, 55% of artsand humanities researchers visited their main library at least once each week but by 2006 it haddeclined to 48% and the downward trend is set to continue; in 2011 just 40% of them anticipate thatthey will be visiting their library frequently. In other disciplines, the fall in visits over the past five yearshas been much sharper, and the survey indicates that while numbers will continue to fall in the years to

come, the rate of decline may be less precipitate. The trend for social science researchers mirrors theaverage, falling from 43% in 2001 to 22% in 2006 and is on course to fall further to 19% by 2011. It is,however, researchers in the life and physical sciences where frequent use of institutional main libraries


24/74


will fall to their lowest levels. By 2011 just 10% of physical science researchers and 9.5% of life scienceresearchers will visit their libraries at least once each week. It may be a rare occurrence to see a scienceresearcher in a library in five years time: 47% of physical science researchers say they will visit theirlibrary less than once each month and a further 12% say they will never visit their library. The situationis even more stark for life scientists, where 46% say they will use the main institutional library less thanonce each month by 2011, and 23% think they will never visit the library in person.

This trend in behaviour was confirmed in our focus groups. Whereas researchers in arts, humanitiesand social sciences said they visit the library frequently, most scientists tend now to access libraryresources electronically, from their workplace or from home. Some scientists say they never visit theirlibrary and cannot remember the last time they did so. They do, however, access electronic resourcesfrequently, sometimes more than once per day. They do not use library-provided materials less, but theyaccess them in a different way.

As we have noted, visits to the library can arise for many reasons other than to consult library content.

Most researchers said that they cannot yet order inter-library loans electronically, and expressed theopinion that this was not helpful. On the other hand, those who are able to order remotely admit that itoften results in items being ordered that turn out to be unsuitable. Their former practice, which was togo to the library and discuss the order with a librarian, frequently prevented unsuitable items beingrequested. The issues surrounding inter-library lending are discussed further in section 6.6.

F i g u r e 8 : T h e p e r c en t a g e o f r e sea r c h er s w h o v i s i t t h ei r l i b r a r y a t l ea s t o n c e p e r w eeka n d p r ed i c t e d p e r c en t a g e f o r 2 0 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001 2006 2011

P e r c e n t

Overall

Arts &Humanities

Social Sciences

Physical

Sciences

Life Sciences

[20]


25/74


5.3 The library as a laboratory

A clear message from the survey is that researchers in the arts and humanities perceive libraries in adifferent light from their social science and science colleagues. Not only do they make more personal

visits and use print-based resources more heavily but, for many of them, the library is the equivalent ofthe scientists laboratories. In other words, libraries often house the objects of their research. Figure 9shows the comparison between arts and humanities researchers and the other three broad groups ofresearchers. Nearly 67% of arts and humanities researchers either strongly agree (46.5%) or agree(20%) with the statement that the main objects of their research are located in libraries. For many ofthem, study of publications and archival documents is core to their research. Although obvious, itshould be noted here that these documents may not always be text-based: sometimes they are musicalscores, images, films or audio materials and may exist in only one copy or in just a few copies globally.

F i g u r e 9 : R esea r c h er s f o r w h o m t h e m a i n o b j ec t s o f m y r es ea r c h a r e l o c a t ed i n

l i b r a r i e s

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent

Arts & humanities 46.5 20.3 13.8 12.1 4.9 0.5

Social sciences 11.6 15.1 21.1 31.6 18.8 1.0

Physical sciences 3.4 12.0 18.8 33.3 28.9 0.9

Life sciences 3.6 10.5 16.0 35.2 32.6 1.1

Stronglyagree Agree Neutral Disagree

Stronglydisagree Don't know

As might be expected, most life and physical science researchers disagree with the notion that theobjects of their research are held in libraries. We have not investigated the small proportion of scientists who do agree with the statement. One explanation is that they are working in the fast-growing fields ofinformatics text- and data-mining technologies and are using the published literature for secondaryanalysis.

[21]


26/74


[22]

5.4 The physical resources offered by institutional libraries

The survey results point to five key aspects of the physical resources offered by institutional libraries which researchers particularly value. The differing extent to which these are considered important bythe four major disciplinary groups is shown in Figure 10 below and each is described in detail here.

Convenient location

Most of all, researchers believe the institutional library must be in a convenient location. 46% ofrespondents think this is very important and a further 37% think it is important. This is perhapssurprising in light of the relatively low number of personal visits made to the library, though the averageis pulled up by arts and humanities researchers, 54% of whom think a convenient location is veryimportant, and social science researchers, 52% of whom concur.

Convenient opening hours

Almost as important as location are opening hours. Overall, 44.5% of respondents believe convenientopening hours to be very important and a further 37% consider them important. This issue isespecially close to the hearts of arts and humanities researchers; 59% of regard convenient openinghours as very important, compared with just 35% of life and physical science researchers. Some artsand humanities scholars told us that they would work in the library more if opening hours were moreconvenient: Sunday opening, particularly, was mentioned frequently in this respect.

A place to browse current issues of printed publications

In third place, many respondents value the library as a place to browse current issues of printedpublications with 39% rating this attribute as very important, and a further 35% rating it important.The value placed upon this varies markedly, however, with discipline. Smaller proportions of lifescience (26.5%) and physical science researchers (28%) rate the library as a place to browse currentissues as very important than their colleagues in the social sciences (47%) and the arts and humanities(59%), who visit the library more frequently.

A place for quiet individual study

The institutional library is still valued as a place to undertake quiet individual study, but again the value varies by discipline. Overall 37% of respondents believe this aspect of their library to be very

important and a further 25% think it important. Not surprisingly, the facility is greatly valued by53% of arts and humanities researchers. The proportions for the other groups are notably smaller:social scientists 40%; physical scientists 29%; and life scientists 28%.

Researchers told us that although they would like to continue to view the library as a work place,increasingly the conditions in libraries make working there very difficult. Libraries are frequently noisy, because of the level of conversation (especially amongst students), the use of mobile telephones (bansare commonly flouted), and the development of group work spaces. Quiet zones may alleviate theproblem but they often do not work well, with noise rules often ignored. Some researchers went as far asto suggest that since so many people now access library content electronically from their workplace orhome, the library has taken on a new role that of somewhere to talk and discuss.

Librarians acknowledge the problem. They accept that many researchers see the library as anundergraduate space. They go so far as to admit that often the only way to get money for the library is


27/74


to badge it as a learning hub for students. This tends to exclude researchers, since their needs for quiet workspace do not accord with the modern trends of library-integrated coffee shops, communal areas orgroup work spaces, and they end up, in the words of one librarian, feeling disenfranchised.

Provision of modern IT equipment to access digital resourcesIn fifth place is the provision of modern equipment to access the digital information resources used byresearchers. 32% of researchers believe this is a very important aspect of their librarys provision anda further 26% think it is important. Social scientists perceive the benefit most, with 40% of themreporting such provision to be very important. Comparable figures for other disciplines are arts andhumanities 33%, life scientists 28% and physical scientists 23%.

F i g u r e 10 : P er c en t a g e o f r e sea r c h er s w h o r a t e k e y a s p ec t s o f t h e p h y si c a l o f f er i n g s o ft h ei r i n st i t u t i o n a l l i b r a r y a s " v er y i m p o r t a n t "

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Convenient location

Convenient opening hours

Place to browse current issuesPlace for quiet individual study

Modern IT equipment

Arts & Humanities Social Sciences

Physical Sciences Life Sciences

It is instructive also to consider the physical resources offered by institutional libraries that areperceived to be less important than those listed above. The provision of high quality buildings andassociated infrastructure is considered important but not necessarily essential. Overall 26% ofrespondents see such provision is very important, yet a sizeable minority do not place too muchemphasis on the physical state of the buildings. Relatively few researchers consider the library to havean important role to play as a place for group study and learning; indeed, 19% of them say this isnot very important and a further 31% think it is not at all important. Finally researchers do not, on balance, place much importance on the librarys role as a congenial meeting and networking space.

5.5 The location of researchers

The survey indicates that the bulk of researchers (79%) access electronic information most commonlyfrom their office. The next most common location is their home. Relatively few do so from within

library buildings. This overall figure masks disciplinary-based differences. Whereas 90% of physicaland life science researchers prefer to access electronic information from their offices, the correspondingfigures for social science and arts and humanities researchers are 76% and 58% respectively. Life

[23]


28/74


scientists are least likely to access such information from the library: only 10% gave this as their secondchoice, while 22% of arts and humanities researchers did so.scientists are least likely to access such information from the library: only 10% gave this as their secondchoice, while 22% of arts and humanities researchers did so.

F i g u r e 11: P er c en t a g e o f r esea r c h er s w h o a c cess el e ct r o n i c i n f o r m a t i o n v a r i o u sl o c a t i o n s

F i g u r e 11: P er c en t a g e o f r esea r c h er s w h o a c cess el e ct r o n i c i n f o r m a t i o n v a r i o u sl o c a t i o n s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Most commonly from Next most commonly from

My Office Home On the move Library building

Added to this tendency to stay at their desks or in their laboratories, scholars are also opting for lifestylechoices that suit them best but which add to the difficulties of libraries. Many universities used to have acondition in the terms of employment that staff must live within a certain radius of the institution. That

condition has now largely disappeared, and researchers often choose to live some considerable distancefrom the institution. They visit the institution in order to teach, to meet with colleagues, and sometimesto visit the library; but on the whole they are absent from the institution while they conduct theirresearch. This brings problems for libraries in seeking to meet the research needs of those scholars; andnegotiating agreements with publishers to secure access to digital information from off-campuslocations can be time consuming and tricky. Moreover, distant researchers are beginning to suggestthat they should be able to use the library services of the nearest institution to their home, bringing withit the requirement for libraries to try to put in place rather complex reciprocal usage arrangements. Thisissue arises also in the context of new collaborative working practices that are discussed in Section 7.

5.6 Libraries at other institutions5.6.1 Reciprocal borrowing and reading schemes One of the key lines of enquiry for this study has been to establish the extent to which researchers relyon libraries at institutions other than their own. Inter-library lending is discussed in Section 6.6: in thissection we address visits by researchers to other institutions libraries.

The frequency with which researchers visit other libraries in person has declined over the past five years but the need to access resources from afar is still pressing: only 5% of researchers say they never need toconsult or obtain material held in libraries outside their own institution. In fact 47% of researchersmake use of reading rights at other institutions libraries and 29.5% of them exercise borrowing rights atother institutions libraries. It is worth noting in this context that 11% report they are registeredmembers of SCONUL Research Extra, a reciprocal borrowing scheme between university libraries in theUK. The focus groups and telephone interviews, however, revealed only a patchy awareness of the

[24]


29/74


scheme: some researchers, particularly in the arts and humanities, are familiar with the scheme and useit, whereas many in the sciences are completely unaware of its existence.

The scheme is nevertheless showing encouraging trends: from 2003 to 2005 there was an overall

increase of 61% in registrations and a 167% increase in usage. In the first half of 2005, 3,934researchers and 5,570 research students were registered with the scheme. There were 99,501 loans orrenewals in that period, of which 56,734 (57%) were by research students. This is clearly a successstory, and the comments we heard in our discussions with researchers confirmed that the scheme ishelpful and considered as a major advance in improving access to material not available locally. There were also expressions of surprise and, more importantly, interest from researchers who had notheard of the scheme. It could go a long way towards solving access problems related to monographs orresearch texts that are otherwise difficult to locate and obtain.

5.6.2 Researchers personal visits to libraries at other institutionsDespite the success of SCONUL Research Extra and other reciprocal access schemes, our survey showsthat researchers use of libraries other than those in their own institution has decreased markedly since2001, although this trend is expected to level off in the future. This holds true for all four discipline- based groups of researchers, the results for which are presented in Figure 12.

The graph shows that researchers in different disciplines have different needs in using libraries otherthan their institutional library. Not surprisingly, since their work often requires access to rare orunusual source material, arts and humanities researchers are the most common users of otherinstitutions libraries: 38% did so in 2006. At the other end of the scale, only 5.5% of life scienceresearchers travelled to other libraries in 2006. And in the physical sciences, the proportion ofresearchers travelling to other libraries halved from 12% in 2001 to nearer 6% in 2006. Scientists

consult journals much more than books, of course, and journals are often better provided for locally bylibraries and in digital form via researchers desktops. Occupying the middle ground, a small butsignificant proportion of social scientists make use of libraries other than their own although theproportion doing so has fallen by 11% in the past five years.

F i g u r e 12 : T h e p e r c en t a g e o f r e sea r c h er s v i si t i n g l i b r a r i e s a t o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s a t l e a sto n c e p e r m o n t h a n d p r ed i c t e d p er c en t a g e f o r 2 0 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001 2006 2011

P e r c e n t

Overall

Arts & Humanities

Social Sciences

Physical Sciences

Life Sciences

[25]


30/74


[26]

Researchers visit libraries outside their institution to obtain or consult special source materials, to view journals to which their own library does not subscribe or books the library has not purchased. For journals they make less effort to travel, finding other ways to acquire the articles they need or giving upaltogether if the search proves onerous. Arts and humanities scholars needing specialised books orunique source material for their research may travel extensively to other libraries. In some cases, tripsoverseas are required and long-distance travel within the UK is not uncommon. In this regard, ResearchExtra has provided a useful service, though it cannot provide the unique and special collection materialthat is not available for loan even within host institutions; and Oxford and Cambridge are notable non-participants in the Research Extra scheme.

Scholars who need to make use of other institutions libraries generally express some dissatisfaction with the procedures that must be followed in order to so do. They would like to see simplified reciprocalaccess, reading and borrowing arrangements between libraries. This is an ideal especially desirable forlibraries within a specific locality or region, where researchers may willingly make the effort to travelrelatively short distances to obtain material of interest. If encumbered by onerous formalities and

restrictions when they wish to do this they are much more reluctant to make it a habit.

5.6.3 On display: what researchers use at other institutions libraries, and how A significant proportion of researchers value the facility to access the electronic resources of otherlibraries: 28% believe this to be very useful while a further 23% rate it as useful. Even though 24%of researchers say they dont access other libraries information resources online, just a tiny proportionsay such a service is not useful. Again the overall figures mask some clear disciplinary differences: whereas online access to other libraries resources is used by just 21.5% of life science researchers and22% of physical science researchers, the proportion for social science researchers is 31% and for artsand humanities researchers 38%. It is notable, however, that while significant numbers of researchers

attach high value to the resources of other libraries, this does not necessarily result in heavy use: only6% of librarians think that online access to the electronic resources of other libraries attracts veryheavy use while 18% think the facility attracts heavy use. For most, the use is moderate (29%),light (17%) or very light (9.5%); and 12% report that their library does not offer this type of access.

As Figure 13 shows, a sizeable minority of researchers also find the print-based resources of otherlibraries very useful (16.5%) or useful (21%). Although 33% of researchers say they dont use printresources outside their institutional library, only 6% of all researchers believe that the availability ofsuch resources is not useful to them. Again there are differences by disciplinary group, and for printresources the differences are very stark. Just 6.5% of life scientists and 5% of physical scienceresearchers rate access to the print-based resources of other libraries as very useful. By contrast, 15%of social science researchers find such access very useful; and for arts and humanities researchers theproportion rises to 46%. Again, there is a tension here with librarians views of the extent to whichresearchers make use of print-based resources from other libraries. 5% say use is very heavy, 15% optfor heavy use, while the majority think the pattern of use is somewhat less: 42.5% say that use ismoderate, 20% say it is light, and a further 9.5% report usage being very light. Just 6% oflibrarians indicate that this service is not available in their library.


31/74


F i g u r e 13 : R esea r ch er s w h o f i n d p r i n t o r o n l i n e a cc ess t o o t h e r l i b r a r i es' i n f o r m a t i o n

r e so u r c es u s ef u l

Percent

3

9

33

24

1

1

5

2

17

10

21

23

17

28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percentage of researchers who find the print-basedresources of other libraries

useful

Percentage of researchers who find online access tothe electronic resources of

other libraries useful

Not available in my library Don't use Not at all useful Not very useful Neutral Useful Very useful

Key Points

Researchers visit the library less frequently than they did five years ago and this trend willcontinue; only in the arts and humanities do a significant majority of researchers put a high value on the services offered in library buildings

Arts and humanities researchers are the heaviest users of the library and its physical resources, because fewer of the information resources they need are available digitally; and because forsome, libraries constitute the laboratory which contains the objects of their research. But this will change as more resources become available digitally.

Libraries must consider very carefully the in the light of these developments the configuration oftheir space and services for researchers, particularly in terms of opening hours and the provisionof facilities for quiet individual study

The importance of other institutions libraries remains relatively strong for researchers in thearts and humanities, but more could be done to facilitate the use of other libraries and topromote reciprocal access schemes

As researchers increasingly work away from their home institution or wish to use the resourcesof another institution as a matter of routine, there is a need urgently to address the issuessurrounding reciprocal access to digital resources

[27]


32/74

Researchers Use of Academic Libraries and their Services6. Researcher behaviour

6 What are they doing? What will they do next? Researcherbehaviour

6.1 Introduction

As we have already noted, researchers find the electronic information resources provided by theirlibrary useful, particularly current and back issues of electronic journals. There is, however, a widerange of other print and electronic resources and finding aids offered by libraries and the extent to which researchers find these different resources useful is explored in this section.

6.2 Researchers use of print information resources

The widespread availability of electronic versions of scholarly information resources is a relativelyrecent phenomenon. Until the early 1990s researchers had to rely mostly on print-based journals, books, reference works and so forth. Since, at present, many libraries are adapting their policies tofocus more on electronic access to such sources, the survey set out to discover the extent to which print- based information resources remain useful to researchers. It is worth noting again here that reliance onprint-based resources may mean travelling to other libraries to gain access to them.

Print-based information resources are in general regarded as less important and useful than electronicresources. Of the array of print resources on offer, books are perceived to be the most useful: 52% ofresearchers said they find books in print to be very useful. Current and back issues of journals in print

form are also found to be useful by many researchers though, as Figure 14 demonstrates, the results aresignificantly differentiated by discipline.

Many more researchers in the arts and humanities find printed information resources useful than theircounterparts in other disciplines. Books, for example, are regarded as very useful by 75% of arts andhumanities researchers as compared to 55% in social sciences, 47% in physical sciences and 34% in lifesciences. Similar margins of difference are evident for current and back issues of journals andreference-only items. The greatest inter-disciplinary differences pertain to archives in print ormanuscript and special collections in print. Archives are rated very useful by 50% of arts andhumanities researchers and special collections by 46%. By comparison the figures for life scienceresearchers are 10% and 8%.

Whereas one might have anticipated this pattern of attitudes towards archives, special collections and books it is notable that arts and humanities researchers also still find print versions of current and backissues of journals very useful. This is probably because although there is now a move towards electronicpublishing of arts and humanities journals, the digital format is by no means ubiquitous as yet.Researchers in these disciplines told us that they value electronic access to journals in just the same wayas scientists and social scientists do, but there remains more to be done in this area before the whole ofthe scholarly journal corpus is delivered in digital format.

[28]


33/74

Researchers Use of Academic Libraries and their Services6. Researcher behaviour

F i g u r e 14 : P er cen t a g e o f r esea r c h er s w h o r a t e p r i n t i n f o r m a t i o n r eso u r ces p r o v i d e d b yt h ei r i n st i t u t i o n a l l i b r a r y " v er y u sef u l

0

20

40

60

80

100Current issues of journals

Back issues of journals

Books

Reference-only items

Archives

Short loan

Special collections

Non peer reviewed items

Arts & Humanities Social Sciences

Physical Sciences Life Sciences

6.3 How researchers find information

Librarians report that bibliographic databases are still being used, but when full-text offerings camealong many researchers abandoned the bibliographic products. There are many databases, and somedisciplines have more than most. In social sciences, for example, librarians report some confusion within the community as to why there are so many and which are the most appropriate to use. There isa skills development issue here.

6.3.1 Printed finding aids We used the survey to help provide an understanding about the extent to which the array of finding aidsprovided by libraries is helpful to researcher

researchers libraries services report 2

Documents